Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14

Author Topic: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI  (Read 12281 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2023, 09:18:43 PM »
Quote from: Angelus on July 19, 2023, 08:06:08 PM
If their "intention" is to never have any more children, then that "intention," to avoid sex during a fertile period, is sinful. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of sex without the responsibility of children. 

No.  Principles hold for each individual exercise of martial rights (marital relations), and not merely if the couple intends NEVER to have any children.  You need to stop promoting your errors.
Logged

Offline Seraphina

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2023, 12:57:21 AM »
NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended.  My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest.  It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles.  (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!)  If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice?  Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for.  

Logged

Offline Marulus Fidelis

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2023, 04:36:44 AM »
Quote from: Seraphina on July 20, 2023, 12:57:21 AM
NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended.  My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest.  It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles.  (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!)  If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice?  Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for. 
There is no circuмstance in which the primary ends can be subordinated to the secondary. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of NFP. 
Logged

Offline Crayolcold

Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2023, 08:22:01 AM »
Quote from: Seraphina on July 20, 2023, 12:57:21 AM
NFP, if used continuously for “birth control” would be sin against the spirit for which it was intended.  My understanding is that NFP may be practiced only in exceptional circuмstances with permission of a priest.  It certainly should not be included in standard pre-marriage counseling as it is in the novus ordo and in some traditional circles.  (If statistics are to be believed, the overwhelming majority of novus ordo Catholics ignore it and use regular birth control, which in a sense, is more honest!)  If a couple is really in a situation where another baby or pregnancy is not doable or is dangerous, wouldn’t both agreeing to a period of celibacy be the better choice?  Yes, each has conjugal rights, but sacrificing those rights for a time or even permanently may be what God calls for. 

This is something I see a lot when I ask questions and begin arguments on theological or doctrinal issues. People will simply state position of the opposing side and use that as an argument without stating WHY their position is correct.

I am not lumping you in there Seraphina, just a small pet peeve of mine :laugh1:

I would also like someone to explain to me how "temporary" or "non-regular" use of NFP would make it okay; seeing as everyone admits that it would be a sin to use it as a permanent form of contraception. How would the irregularity of its use to prevent children make it okay? A sɛҳuąƖ sin like this would be a sin against the natural law, if you err against a sɛҳuąƖ sin like this a single time you would be committing a grave sin. Repeated sins of this nature would just be compounding. We would never say of self-abuse that "if you do it every now and then to rid yourself of a serious headache, it's fine! The problem lies in the addiction and repeated abuse of the grave action..." It may seem like a silly comparison at first, but I think it holds. What are you doing with NFP? Pleasuring yourself with the intention of no pesky side effects -- like bringing one of God's children into the world. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: NFP: grave sin yet promoted by Paul VI
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2023, 08:29:46 AM »
Quote from: Marulus Fidelis on July 20, 2023, 04:36:44 AM
There is no circuмstance in which the primary ends can be subordinated to the secondary. If you must not have a baby you must abstain and can't risk getting pregnant in spite of NFP.

Yeah, this right here.  If you do have some grave circuмstances in play, then abstinence is required.  People seem to hold as some un-stated premise that everyone has some God-given right to marital relations.  If your spouse becomes ill or incapacitated, perhaps in a coma, or just comes down with a serious illness, then you're required to abstain.  Similarly, if the situation is grave enough to warrant NFP, then I should think one would need to completely abstain to prevent even the chance of conception.  I've heard the claim often enough that the wife's life is at risk if she has another child (typically made by idiot doctors who also agitate for couples to get abortions).  But if the wife's life is TRULY in danger, could you even morally take the risk that your NFP might "fail"?  It's constantly a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
« previous next »